274

Vertical farming, the best solution to support an ever growing population or just a scam?

IMHO it has a lot of potential but not being able to grow grains really is something that should be tackled sooner rather than later. But I could see this being used by self sustaining communities to provide lots of food while using very little space. And it's technically more environmentally friendly than just using vast stretches of land to produce the same amount of food.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] keepthepace@slrpnk.net 76 points 1 year ago

I have gone back and forth on vertical farming. There are scams in the field, but there are also some merits (most of them apply to urban farming in general).

The main issue you have with vertical farming is that there is only so much stacking you can do before you get out of light. A pillar like in the illustration projects a shadow, in which you can't really put plants.

However right now sunlight is not the limiting factor for plants growth. IIRC depending on the plant it is either water or CO2 so you can do some amount of vertical farming. To me, the interest is not to come as a replacement for regular farming (so growing grains is not the issue, you will have a hard time beating the efficiency of a flat field + tractor), the interests are:

  • freshness. Having herbs that you can cut as you need them is really a taste changer.
  • air cleaning. Some plants do have the ability to fixate some VOCs.
  • less transportation. Having the plants grown in the same building block means that the CO2 footprint will be much lower
  • more efficient water usage. Careful with this one, in some places water will be more scarce in city than countryside, but water consumption of such systems is generally lower.
  • less refrigeration. If the food has less transportation it also requires less refrigeration
  • local fruits all year long. Assuming they are put in a controlled environment like a greenhouse, getting food that normally requires a lot of transportation locally becomes possible.

So to sum up, it is less of a solution to make regular agriculture sustainable and more to make sustainable agriculture more enjoyable. Actually one does not need tasty herbs and exotic fruits, but the ability t have them without poisoning the planet is nice and, well, solarpunk.

[-] Moira_Mayhem@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

There's an organic produce company in Manhattan that uses vertical grow chambers and they get around the lighting problem by illuminating from the center of the cluster and rotating the plant pods occasionally.

They get around energy usage by charging a premium and taking advantage of state agricultural grants.

It's expensive but you can get city grown butter lettuce year round.

[-] keepthepace@slrpnk.net 11 points 1 year ago

Normally that would be a bit of an heresy, but fun thing: with the good LEDs at the good frequency, you can make a solar panel + LED setup that is actually efficient enough to provide more light to the plant than it would normally receive.

[-] greengnu@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago

depends extremely heavily on the efficiency of the panels.

You would need to exceed 84% solar to electricity conversion efficiency to make that conversion pay off.

As chlorophyll has an approximate 90% maximum interception of 400nm to 740nm light and your panels would be getting the extra energy from frequencies outside of that range. The energy of a photon is determined by hc/λ, with the result that the energy of a blue photon (400 nm) is 75% greater than that of a red photon (700 nm).

Anything less than that would be a net loss unless there is a significant increase of ultraviolet light in the near future.

[-] keepthepace@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Within the 400 to 740nm range chlorophyll has a huge gap: https://cdn.kastatic.org/ka-perseus-images/27c5e928745dbde12550494315ec70253091eee5.png whereas sunlight is strong across all of it. Grow lights usually only provide blue and red wavelengths that are better absorbed. Also, most plants' growth are not limited by sunlight but usually either by water/nutrients or CO2, so most of them can receive a bit less light than the sun typically provides.

The calculation we had done a few years ago, that gave us the result that a square meter of PV could light up almost 2 square meter of crops, only took these spectra into account.

Since then, I have read really counter intuitive things that may even raise the efficiency higher (and the weirdness of grow boxes even more). People started using LASER LEDs to grow plants. Low power of course, but it turns out that concentrating the light on where the plants and leaves actually are does indeed maximize the number of photons that get absorbed.

Here again, I am not sure this is something desirable or the future that I want, but this is a possibility that is out there.

[-] greengnu@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

and how did the experimental test of the calculated results turn out?

I would be quite interested to learn more.

[-] keepthepace@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

This was just a theoretical discussion, like I said, I am not sure this would be a good idea per se even if possible.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2023
274 points (98.2% liked)

Solarpunk

5393 readers
33 users here now

The space to discuss Solarpunk itself and Solarpunk related stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere.

What is Solarpunk?

Join our chat: Movim or XMPP client.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS